Google and Verizon released a new plan this week for how the Internet should operate (see Susan's post for more background), if they got to rule the world. We'd keep Net Neutrality for the wired Internet (at least for consumers not corporations), but they could set up fast lanes and slow lanes for the wireless Internet. Wireless is of course the future of the Internet, but then again that is exactly the point.

Their proposal has devided the tech industry, as the NYT reported today, with Facebook, Amazon, eBay and venture capitalists raising serious concerns with the Google/Verizon evil deal:

It set off a flood of reaction, much of it negative, from Web companies and consumer advocacy groups. In the most extreme situation that opponents envision, two Internets could emerge — the public one known today, and a private one with faster lanes and expensive tolls. [snip]

The wireless Internet is quickly emerging as the dominant technology platform, said Matt Cohler, a general partner at Benchmark Capital, a prominent venture firm in Silicon Valley that has invested in start-ups like Twitter. “It is as important to have the right protections in place for the newer platform as it is for the older platform.”

The media has trashed their evil deal and over 300,000 people have signed an open letter demanding Google drop this proposal.

It's a giant corporate power-grab and Google who claims to "do no evil" is doing exactly that with this evil plan. That's why MoveOn, the PCCC (where I work), CREDO Action, Color of Change and Free Press are holding a rally at noon tomorrow in front of Google headquarters. The event is at the corner of Amphitheatre Parkway and Charleston Road in Mountain View. Click here to RSVP.

For people in the San Francisco area, there will be a bus leaving from the San Francisco Opera House at 11 a.m. You have to RSVP to get on the bus, as seats are limited.

This deal can be stopped, but only if President Obama and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski understand just how angry we are at the prospect of our rights being trampled online by Google and other corporate giants. So, please join us, or if you don't live in the Bay Area, pass along the info to your friends.

Archive video of Morris' re: Sestak - April, 2010

Dick Morris has it made. He sucks GOP toes for fun and profit, then goes on Fox to shill for his paymasters. Media Matters reports:

According to Federal Election Commission records, in February, the Republican Federal Committee of Pennsylvania paid Fox News "political analyst" Dick Morris $10,000 for speaking at its 2010 Lincoln Day Dinner. Following the payment, Morris repeatedly appeared on Fox News to discuss Pennsylvania politics, and shill for Pennsylvania Republicans and causes.

That video at the top is Dick Morris going nuts over Joe Sestak's alleged "deal with the White House." That was a big fat hairy deal on Fox News for days until it was flogged so hard it had no air.

Between February 22 and July 19, Morris discussed Pennsylvania politics at least 13 times on Fox News. During those instances, Morris ironically criticized corruption involving the purported "bribe" of Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) by the White House; cheered on Republican Senate candidate Pat Toomey's electoral chances; and forwarded the bogus non-scandal over the Justice Department's actions in a case involving the New Black Panther Party at a Pennsylvania polling station.

And this:

The PA GOP's payment to Morris was addressed to his "Triangulation Strategies" for the purpose of "Event - Speaker."

The Alabama Republican Party also paid Morris $15,000 (addressed directly to Dick Morris at the address of "Triangulation Strategies") on June 23 for "Summer Dinner Speaker." Morris spoke at the local party's 2010 Reagan Dinner.

$25,000 buys a lot of toe-sucking time on Fox, I guess.

(image h/t Bluegal)

When Clarence Thomas denies an appeal, it should be a signal that bizarro world isn't quite bizarro enough to legitimize birtherbot Orly Taitz. But no, Justice Alito decided Orly should be given the courtesy of more than a curt dismissal. Not only did he decide that, he did it despite the fact that she didn't even make the right request!

Miami Herald:

A request to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito by "birther" attorney Orly Taitz asking that $20,000 in sanctions against her be reversed was referred on Tuesday to the entire court.

U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land imposed the sanctions last year after he warned her and then gave her a time limit to explain why he shouldn't fine her in the September 2009 case of Capt. Connie Rhodes, who questioned the legitimacy of Barack Obama's presidency.

Taitz appealed the sanctions to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. That court upheld the sanctions in March, and Taitz sent an application for stay to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on July 8. Thomas denied it a week later.

Taitz then refiled it with Alito on Aug. 4. That request was referred on Tuesday to the entire nine-member court, the Supreme Court's website states.

Got that? Taitz chose the two most conservative teabagging justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. One declined; one accepted, at least to the extent of passing it around to the rest of them.

It's not like we didn't already know Alito was a reactionary hater, but this goes far beyond the pale. Orly Taitz is a half-wit publicity-seeking nutcase who has just been granted a piece of the Supreme Court's attention. I think we can safely assume Alito shares Taitz' agenda to delegitimize the President of the United States.

Oh, and poor Orly is having a problem because she's facing a lien on her property:

On Monday, a lien was filed on all of Taitz’s real property. Taitz said she wouldn’t give the government the satisfaction of taking her property or potentially her law license, adding she would pay the fine.

As of Wednesday, Taitz said on her website that she had raised $1,740 in donations.

Mason theorized that if the entire court dismisses the application for stay, it would be dismissed without consideration if she were to again refile it with another justice.

Mason is a little off on the analysis, in my opinion. Alito could have denied it summarily, too. Assuming he did so, did she expect Kennedy or Roberts to hear it?

It makes me want to go hunt down the standards for impeachment of United States Supreme Court justices. Alito may go down in history as the worst legacy of the Bush administration, even exceeding Iraq and Afghanistan.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (148)

PLAYS: (669)

Appearing on The O'Reilly Factor Thursday, Fox News' Glenn Beck took time out of his daily habit of railing against progressives to calmly explain that the country wasn't going to be destroyed by giving marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

Beck told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly why he didn't devote airtime to the issue. "Because honestly I think we have bigger fish to fry," said Beck. "You can argue about abortion or gay marriage or whatever all you want. The country is burning down."

"But isn't that one of the reasons because we are getting away from the traditional way we used to live into this progressive [agenda]," prompted O'Reilly.

"Your country is burning down," answered Beck. "I don't think marriage, that the government actually has anything to do with what is a religious right."

"Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?" asked O'Reilly.

"No, I don't," said Beck. "Will the gays come and get us?"

Beck continued, "I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?"

Beck told O'Reilly that he wasn't worried about same-sex marriage rights as long as churches could choose not to perform the ritual on gays and lesbians.

While O'Reilly claims that he takes a libertarian view on gay marriage, in the past he has worried that it could lead to people marrying animals.

Judge Walker has opened the door for same-sex marriage, but with a bit of a twist. The stay will remain in effect until August 18th to give the proponents of Prop 8 an opportunity to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

That's not surprising, but what does surprise me is the lengthy discussion of whether those same Prop 8 proponents even have standing to file such an appeal.

Because Prop 8 was an amendment to the state Constitution, the Attorney General and Governor are the parties with standing to appeal Judge Walker's ruling. However, Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger both declined to do so. At the trial, the original proponents were allowed to present their case instead of Brown and Schwarzenegger, but after the judge ruled, responsibility for appeal bounced back to the state.

Brown and Schwarzenegger argued that the stay should be lifted and marriages allowed immediately. What Judge Walker has done with this short extension of the stay is to allow the Prop 8 proponents to argue: a) that they have standing to appeal; and b) that the stay should be made permanent.

Judge Walker seems to think they don't have standing. Key conclusion:

Because proponents make no argument that they -- as opposed to the state defendants or plaintiffs -- will be irreparably injured absent a stay, proponents have not given the court any basis to exercise its discretion to grant a stay.

Bottom line: This is moving toward the Supreme Court. The real question is what will happen in the interim.

Chris Geidner has a quick analysis with key points. Maddow also reacts. The LA Times reports that Prop 8 proponents plan an immediate appeal.

Update #2: According to Right Wing Watch, the American Family Association is considering the possibility of dropping any challenge to Prop 8 in order to save bans on same-sex marriage in other states.

(Danziger Cartoons))

When one is writing a post about retirement security in response to someone else's post on the same topic; namely, the fact that public sector employees' benefits and salaries far outpace the private sector, it is probably a bad idea to write an ending like the quote I'm about to share. Megan McArdle's best moment in her post on pension and retirement security is her parting shot:

Jon Cohn's wish to spread the bounty of pubic sector pensions more broadly seems like, well, wishful thinking.

I'm tempted to end this post right now, since the rest of it was typical right wing retirement twaddle made up by employers who decided at some point that their employees' retirement security wasn't as important as the value of their stock options. But I just can't let her get away with the old conservative saw about unsustainable pensions and the like.

It was nice that a combination of rising life expectancy and broader pension coverage allowed a large segment of American workers to take what amounted to a multi-decade vacation. (Though this was never quite as widespread as people now "remember"). But this was never going to be sustainable.

Perhaps I should forgive the young Ms. McArdle for her arrogance (multi-decade vacations? REALLY?), but again, I can't. Since I was three years away from hitting the workforce when she was born, I think I'll educate her instead.

Retiring workers, you see, open up the workforce for those young bucks with their college degrees and eager-beaver shiny faces. If they have to work until they drop, well, it's far less likely that Junior WhizKid and his roommate Megan McPerky will have a chance of putting their foot in the door, much less earning a decent living.

Continue reading »

As a member of the Professional Left, I'm sorry to say that my attitude toward the Gulf oil spill cleanup is that the glass is not even half-full. I'm sorry to say it, because it's an implied criticism of the administration and it will make poor Bobby Gibbs cry. I think it's got to be said, loudly and often: This seafood is not safe to eat.

From the Solve Climate blog:

HOPEDALE, LA.— In the small towns of coastal Louisiana, the widespread consensus is that the oil is far from gone.Fishermen return from working on cleanup crews or from recreational angling trips with stories of crabs whose lungs are black with oil, or of oysters with shells covered in sludge. They take photos and carry tarballs home like talismans to show what they have seen. They talk about their fears with anyone who will listen, and often their voices are tinged with panic.

Yet a government report released last week by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said that 75 percent of the oil has been cleaned up, dispersed or otherwise contained. And the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports that of all the samples of seafood that have been tested since the oil spill, none have shown evidence of contamination.

While some in the coastal seafood industry agree with these assessments, a majority seem to view the news with a sense of betrayal.

"The cleanup isn't even close to being done," said Karen Hopkins of Dean Blanchard Seafood, which accounts for about 11 percent of the U.S. shrimp supply, on the barrier island of Grand Isle.

"The last thing I want to do is scare anyone away from the seafood down here," said Dawn Nunez, standing at the counter of the shrimp wholesale business and deli she owns in the tiny fishing town of Hopedale. "But if I’m not eating it or feeding it to my children, I can’t advise anyone else to eat it either."

On their dock across the street, Dawn's husband Marty Nunez pulls a clump of oil-ridden marsh grass out of a plastic bag.

"There's people fishing where this is at – or worse than this," he said. "I can't understand how they say things are getting back to normal."

Nunez surreptitiously picked the grass while working as part of BP'sVessels of Opportunity cleanup operation on Monday. For him the oil-soaked grass is a symbol of a lurking threat. Like many other people living along the coast, Nunez is confident that vast quantities of oil remain in the environment, despite highly publicized announcements to the contrary.

"Our fishermen bring home grass and tarballs and then we watch the news and they say there is no sign of oil," said Dawn Nunez. "Where did it go? Where did millions of gallons of oil go if it's not in the Gulf?"

A widely held theory is that the 1.8 million gallons of dispersants that were sprayed during the cleanup operation caused the oil to sink to the bottom.

Well, Anthony Weiner came back on Morning Joe once again to talk about the First Responders Bill that he and Peter King got into it over on the House floor and no surprise he and Joe Scarborough got into it again as well. I expected as much after Scarborough's ranting and raving and attacking Weiner and the Democrats the last time he had Peter King on.

Scarborough needs to go take a look in the mirror if he wants to know what a demagogue looks like. Someone also needs to remind Scarborough and little Russert that poison-pills do not equal an "up or down vote". If the Republicans cared more about the first responders from 9-11 than playing political games they'd have voted yes on a clean bill instead of insisting on adding amendments solely for the purpose of making political ads and fear mongering about illegal immigrants.

Man I tell you what... this show is just about unwatchable. Joe Scarborough is an insufferable, loud mouthed, bully.

Sure, lots of people say that. But not all of them were Ronald Reagan's budget director. Now mind you, Stockman's hardly a liberal -- he's bemoaning the fact that Republicans haven't managed to slash social spending and entitlement programs, but he's saying that as long as we have these programs, the only honest thing to do is raise taxes, not cut them:

ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- "How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse."

Get it? Not "destroying." The GOP has already "destroyed" the U.S. economy, setting up an "American Apocalypse."

Stockman rushes into the ring swinging like a boxer: "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase."

Stockman says "the second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40% of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970." Who's to blame? Not big-spending Dems, says Stockman, but "from the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."

Finally, thanks to Republican policies that let us "live beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore," while at home "high-value jobs in goods production ... trade, transportation, information technology and the professions shrunk by 12% to 68 million from 77 million."

As the apocalypse draws near, Stockman sees a class-rebellion, a new revolution, a war against greed and the wealthy. Soon. The trigger will be the growing gap between economic classes: No wonder "that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1% of Americans -- paid mainly from the Wall Street casino -- received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy -- got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad economic policy."

Get it? The decaying fruit of the GOP's bad economic policies is destroying our economy.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (333)

PLAYS: (783)

Yesterday I said that Gibbs should resign, but now he's not backing off his outrageous criticisms of the 'professional left" so I think he should be fired.

Speaking publicly for the first time since he disparaged the "professional left," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he stands by his comments, has no plans to resign and that he fully expects progressive voters to go to the polls in 2010.

"I don't plan on leaving and there is no truth to the rumor that I've added an inflatable exit to my office," the press secretary said during Wednesday's briefing, referencing the recent incident in which a Jet Blue flight attendant bolted his plane in frustration.

Taking the podium after a day off to tend to a sore throat, Gibbs said he has not reached out to any Democrats to discuss his remarks, in which he chastised liberals for wanting to "eliminate the Pentagon" and pursue Canadian-style health care reform. Nor, he added, has he talked to the president about the matter.

Does he stand by the comments? "Yes," he replied.

It was suggested that the remarks may have been part of a cynical strategy to depict the White House as not beholden to the progressive base. But the press secretary insisted that there was nothing underhanded in his interview with The Hill. He had said what he said in a bout of frustration.

"There are many time when I read the transcripts... that I could have said things slightly differently. I watch lot of cable TV and you don't have to watch long to get frustrated by some of what's said."

Obviously his statement was off script the other day, but now it has been approved by the President. Look, they can be upset at progressives for wanting more of the change that he promised instead of some half baked DLC legislative victories they've accomplished, but this type attack is off the wall. Maybe we should cut up a video ala Breitbart ourselves and post it which says that Gibbs hates "the left and all he really ever wanted to be was a Republican but couldn't get the job he wanted from Newt Gingrich." Would that be enough for him to get fired?
I doubt that would matter though because Gibbs has the idiot known as Ruth Marcus on his side.